I saw this last night at a press screening. It is one of the better horror films to come out recently, and is actually MUCH more entertaining than the original (which i still consider to be more of a drama). I like the modern spin they gave on it- with biblical scripture supposedly referring to events like 9/11, the psunami, etc. It added to the creepiness.
I think I jumped during this movie more than any movie in the past few years, which is a good thing.
I have to disagree with the DVDTalk reviewer who gave it one star. I'd give it 3 and recommend it- it's really fun. And it's even more fun watching Julia Stiles try to play a parent tortured by her own child.
Zodiac_Speaking
06-06-06, 04:12 PM
In an recent interview, David Seltzer, who wrote the script for the original Omen, said this of the remake: "its dumbed down, its no longer a sophisticated tale, its not asking the audience to challenge themselves." Hmm, he's kinda right.
When you remake something you are asking the fans of the original nothing-some think its blasphemy. Dawn of the Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and now Halloween-all crown jewels of the genre, remade for the new age audiences. Okay, personally I can't complain, cuz they weren't bad remakes, but I actually watched the originals more since, so why get all huffy puffy?
The Omen is a great movie not really a classic, maybe an honorable mention classic, so when Fox announced on 6-6-06 the remake would come out, I thought yay! what fun! Its a cheap gimmick, the 666 and the movie, but who cares.
The remake here is like a band who took the liberites to cover another good songs, but in their style. Not quite a shot-for-shot remake like Psycho, close enough to piss off Seltzer to recieve full credit on the remake. He needed not to be pissed though. Moore is no Richard Donner (the original's director), but he crafted a slick, fun, little ride.
Liev Schrieber is no Gregory Peck (but who is?), but he's really good in here. I've always liked him, and he's the character we latch onto, despite the deal he makes in the beginning. While we should've been on Julia Stiles character side, Stiles is a most average actress, and we never buy into her pain. She's quite annoying. Mia Farrow (from Rosemary's Baby) is probably the best casted actress in this movie. She just fits and a nice little wink to Rosemary's Baby too, but she really seemed to enjoy being in here. The odd man out is Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick, who plays Damien. He's given not much to do except to pout and look emo, for a five year old. Atleast Harvey Stephens II, the original Damien (who cameo's early in!!!), had some nice little charatcer traits and looks that send a fear deep into your stomach-you sense evil when he stares back. Seamus was too cute to be evil and too emo to be scared. He works but just barely.
The score, which won Jerry Goldsmith an Oscar nom, was reworked here by Marco Beltrami (who scored Terminator 3, Scream 3, Hellboy, and countless others) has always been good, but his scores never are fully memorable and just are "there". But the score does pick up nicely towards the end.
Speaking of the end, the third act really picks up and is quite fun to watch, especially the photographers decapitation and THorn vs. the dogs and Thorn vs. the nanny.
I feel Moore's biggest flaw was his over-use of the color red. Red flowers, red robes, red wheels, red, red...There might've been a point to it, but by over using it, it drains the symbolism.
If Moore added a new twist here or there, the film would've been more accepted of being remade, but as it is, there was no point (as with all remakes), but it is quite a servicable and sometimes enjoyable horror film, whicg if you've been following horror in '06, you know not too many have been worth your time (except Hills Have Eyes - a remake too!).
Grade: C+
madara
06-06-06, 04:30 PM
Better then the original? Boggle, I take it only folks that somehow hated first one( 2 stars or less) are saying this? Otherwise color me shocked that a remake could actually be....nah, nevermind.
Seantn
06-06-06, 04:44 PM
In an recent interview, David Seltzer, who wrote the script for the original Omen, said this of the remake: "its dumbed down, its no longer a sophisticated tale, its not asking the audience to challenge themselves." Hmm, he's kinda right.
That's odd, since he's credited as writing the screenplay for the new film as well.
Jackskeleton
06-06-06, 05:06 PM
Saw it last night also in a shitty theater in downey.. I thought the film was alright. Nothing special. It reeeeaaaaally dragged on. Sure it went the route for the cheap surprise blasting of noise and random image route to get a scare every now and but the slow factor really didn't build up to much of an ending.
Julia stiles was pretty bad also.
Zodiac_Speaking
06-06-06, 05:17 PM
That's odd, since he's credited as writing the screenplay for the new film as well.
I know, I got that info from the new Rue Morgue magazine.
jeffkjoe
06-06-06, 05:40 PM
But it is gross?
That's the MAIN quesiton.
Is it "Hostel"-level gross?
Mr. Cinema
06-06-06, 06:29 PM
I'll probably check it out. If it's horror, I'll usually give it a chance.
Zodiac_Speaking
06-06-06, 06:35 PM
But it is gross?
That's the MAIN quesiton.
Is it "Hostel"-level gross?
Not by a long shot. More reserved, but that decapitation was sweet!
AndyCleveland
06-06-06, 09:06 PM
But it is gross?
That's the MAIN quesiton.
Is it "Hostel"-level gross?
there was nothing gross about it.
the decapatation was awesome.
and i agree with the above poster on how the only scary parts were quick shots accompanied by a loud shriek (similar to "The Ring" shriek sound- that's the best way i can describe it) but they still made me jump, which was great.
oh... a side note, i got 4 free posters at the screening last night, and ebayed 2 of them (got $20 each)... then i put the other 2 up and they got VERO'd by 20th Century Fox. How shitty is that? They weren't marked as promotional items or anything.
Philzilla
06-06-06, 09:41 PM
That's odd, since he's credited as writing the screenplay for the new film as well.
John Moore's writing credit got dumped cause he isn't original
The Bus
06-06-06, 11:11 PM
I tried to see it around here, and it was sold out at all 5 screens.
SPiRAL
06-07-06, 12:48 AM
Saw it last night also in a shitty theater in downey.. I thought the film was alright. Nothing special. It reeeeaaaaally dragged on. Sure it went the route for the cheap surprise blasting of noise and random image route to get a scare every now and but the slow factor really didn't build up to much of an ending.
Julia stiles was pretty bad also.
I had passes for the Downey screening too. Was it crowded ?
Julie Walker
06-07-06, 03:01 AM
I saw it at a sold out showing. I agree with the reviewer who rated it a C and said it was entertaining fun all things considered.
I do think the original film is miles superior and more effective in terms of creepy atmosphere,sinister tone and disturbingness than the remake though.
But the 'surprise' moments really caught the audience(and even myself a couple times) off guard everytime. They were jumping and screaming in shock when the stuff hit unexpectedly in most cases.
And it's at least nice to see a horror film attempting to be serious and not please short attention audiences like The Amityville Horror remake for example. And even more surprising that the audience was quiet and respectful throughout the film and only reacted audibly at the proper moments(ie-the kill scenes and a few jump moments).
The audience at the showing really made the experiance all the more fun in my opinion. So I'm glad I checked it out on this 'evil' day for that reason alone.
And thankfully the film didn't bore me to death or anything. But since it's scene for scene like the original for the most part. It offers no real surprises for those in the know and could lead to one becoming restless with the pace.
I didn't really have a problem with either of the 'parents' in the film and their acting either. So all in all it could have been FAR worse than it turned out to be. But like the "Night of the Living Dead" remake,it's too closely the same in terms of sequence of events that it is pointless. But at least it did not have me laughing unintentionally throughout like the "Night" remake which I thought was pretty bad!
mdc3000
06-07-06, 10:00 AM
Saw it last night at a sold out showing...was shocked it was so packed, guess this movie is going to make some bank for sure... anyhow, I thought it was OK. It wasn't nearly as good as the original, but the 2nd half at least made it worth seeing.
I have two real problems with the movie though. The first is the STYLE of the thing. It seems like every shot is set up just to be some sort of creepy juxtaposition. Lots of deep reds on black, red on white, stark white on black etc., none of it serving the story, but just being a heavy handed way of reminding us that this is a story of good and evil...not to mention the horrible MTV style montages that occaisionally popped up with creepy images for no reason (this is why the dream sequences were added...and they were brutal)... The audience I saw it with laughed out loud during several of these dream/montage sequences, because of the stupidity of them...especially when Damien decides he's actually staring in "Son of the Mask 2" for a moment...weak.
The other major problem I have with this movie, which really should have been a deal breaker, was the kid. The best part of Donner's Omen is that Damien is just a regular kid up until the very end. You're not sure if he's the son of the beast, because he doesn't seem sinister...here, the kid they cast has never met a scowl or menacing stare he didn't like. The over-the-top evilness of this kid from the getgo is a huge flaw. If he was more childlike, instead of CLEARLY being the antichrist from frame 1, we could relate more to the dilema that faces Thorn. We could be more emotionally invested...instead, we're just hoping someone will bash in that little fuckers skull... I mean, he can't even make a peanut butter & jelly sandwich without looking like evil incarnate...that scene had people HOWLING with laughter...if I was Stiles in that scene, I'd have knifed the kid.
Anyhow, the things that do work in the film are the supporting cast. Mia Farrow, David Thewlis, Pete Postlethwait and Michael Gambon are awesome. I also thought Liev Schriber did a great job (nobody can fill Peck's shoes, but Liev was interesting) and that's why the second half works much better than the first... less Damien, less Julia Stiles (she is BRUTAL...there is something about her that I just can't stand) and more Robert Thorn. When Robert and the photographer team up, the film finally becomes interesting and engages the audience...up until then, I was constantly checking my watch.
I also agree that they could have been better off changing the story a bit...all the beats were the same as the original but a bit less effective, especially the Church scene and the epilogue at the end...not nearly as good as the original. Also, for an R-rated horror movie, with the exception of the decapitation, it was extremely tame... nothing hard or edgy about it...which is too bad because they could have made the movie extremely badass. Overall, I was entertained (for the last half anyhow) but just wish they had gone with a different director and a different kid.
MATT
Daytripper
06-07-06, 10:54 AM
MDC3000/Matt, I thoroughly enjoyed your review. That kid is the main reason I don't want to see this film. Just from the previews, I want to see him get decapitated. What a ham.
AndyCleveland
06-07-06, 12:13 PM
I also agree that they could have been better off changing the story a bit...all the beats were the same as the original but a bit less effective, especially the Church scene and the epilogue at the end...not nearly as good as the original. Also, for an R-rated horror movie, with the exception of the decapitation, it was extremely tame... nothing hard or edgy about it...which is too bad because they could have made the movie extremely badass. Overall, I was entertained (for the last half anyhow) but just wish they had gone with a different director and a different kid.
MATT
i agree- it didnt really seem like an r-rated movie... the ONLY scene that was gory was the decapatation (and MAYBE the priest scene). There was one "Fuck". that's it.
Giles
06-07-06, 12:26 PM
MDC3000/Matt, I thoroughly enjoyed your review. That kid is the main reason I don't want to see this film. Just from the previews, I want to see him get decapitated. What a ham.
all the kid does is just pout, he ain't scary, he just comes across as annoying.
DRG
06-07-06, 12:37 PM
The first is the STYLE of the thing. It seems like every shot is set up just to be some sort of creepy juxtaposition. Lots of deep reds on black, red on white, stark white on black etc., none of it serving the story, but just being a heavy handed way of reminding us that this is a story of good and evil...not to mention the horrible MTV style montages that occaisionally popped up with creepy images for no reason (this is why the dream sequences were added...and they were brutal)...
I actually felt the opposite about these things. I thought the "look" helped the film immensely. I thought it gave the thing a dark surreal tone, almost an otherwordly 'modern gothic' feel. I also disagree that the flash montages and dream sequences served no purpose. They were meant to be portends or sorts. Plus I felt they added to that otherwordly feel.
I do agree with you about the cast. Julia Stiles just felt too young here, especially in the later parts where Damien was five. She's 25 (presumably 24 when this was filmed), but it felt like she was trying to play a 30-something. It just didn't work. Whenever she tries these 'sophisticated woman' types of roles she comes off as a young Republican college student. That sort of thing worked in Mona Lisa Smile but not here.
And the kid playing Damien... he either needed to be more human or go all out and just be completely sinister. Instead he came off as either bored or sulky.
Charlie Goose
06-07-06, 01:15 PM
When you remake something you are asking the fans of the original nothing-some think its blasphemy. Dawn of the Dead, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and now Halloween-all crown jewels of the genre, remade for the new age audiences.
Halloween is being remade now? Why would they remake it, since it's still churning out sequels?
Atleast Harvey Stephens II, the original Damien (who cameo's early in!!!),
I was on the fence about seeing this, but this will definitely get me there.
Jackskeleton
06-07-06, 01:18 PM
all the kid does is just pout, he ain't scary, he just comes across as annoying.
yeah, that was one of my complaints with it. The kid didn't look evil and he really didn't show any signs of evil in the grand scheme of things.
It was the nanny who killed the mother and other things that did the other task kid was just there looking stupid.
Zodiac_Speaking
06-07-06, 01:22 PM
Halloween is being remade now? Why would they remake it, since it's still churning out sequels?
I was on the fence about seeing this, but this will definitely get me there.
Well, Halloween isn't exactly being remade just "reworked" by Rob Zombie.
Yes, he's (Stevens II) there, but for maybe 30 seconds early.
Mr. Cinema
06-07-06, 02:29 PM
According to Hollywood-Elsewhere, The Omen made $12.5 million yesterday.
Seantn
06-07-06, 02:36 PM
Holy crap, I didn't expect that honestly. I'm surprised it made that much.
Julie Walker
06-07-06, 02:45 PM
I actually felt the opposite about these things. I thought the "look" helped the film immensely. I thought it gave the thing a dark surreal tone, almost an otherwordly 'modern gothic' feel. I also disagree that the flash montages and dream sequences served no purpose. They were meant to be portends or sorts. Plus I felt they added to that otherwordly feel.
I would agree with this,but also with the previous poster on the 'son of mask' reference.
The entire first dream sequence is surreal,tranquil and haunting.....and then is destroyed with the 'son of mask' flash edit bombarding you with 'freaky' imagery ending of the dream. And this did get some laughs of "what the fuck?" from the audience.
The second dream sequence is really effective and again has that surreal serene quality to it and then a jump at the end(slightly more effective than the first dream jump,though still predictable).
I could have done without the flash edit 'disturbing visual' montages which weren't effective. But otherwise the style of the film in terms of cinematography and color was not that bad.
And the film was not as bad as many other remakes that exist out there. Which is one positive for the film,though still nowhere in the same league as the original.
Gutz
06-07-06, 04:31 PM
Just watched the film. It was good. I liked it. Of course, it's not the same caliber as the original but still a good remake. I liked the whole pacing of the movie, cinematography, nice score but I really didnt care about "dream sequences" because they were predictable and not scary. They were cheap "scares". Still, I would like to see if Hollywood wants to make OMEN II and beyond. If this movie will make at least 50 million then we definately getting the second movie.
666 out of 10
whynotsmile
06-07-06, 04:50 PM
thought it was a good, solid, well made remake. Creepy and well acted with substance and story over special effects. did you guys like that "mr. Preisdent" was holding hands with you know who at the end?
Daytripper
06-07-06, 06:03 PM
thought it was a good, solid, well made remake. Creepy and well acted with substance and story over special effects. did you guys like that "mr. Preisdent" was holding hands with you know who at the end?
Isn't that how the original one ended too? I'm pretty sure it is.
Anyway, I'm on the fence about seeing this. But since it's doing so great at the box-office (so far), I'm sure they'll do an "Omen II". Now that one has just GOT to be better than the original. Man did that stink! "The Final Conflict" was much much better (IMO).
Saw it. Thought it was well paced, but poorly acted. I am sure Fox re-made this movie just so they could release it on 6/6/06, and I am sure they thought it would be clever to cast Mia Farrow as Damien's nanny as well. (She was Rosemary in Rosemary's Baby, get it?!?) Yes, we do. Mia Farrow's acting has always annoyed me, having her go alongside Julia Stiles is a double whammy from, well, hell.
My only hope is that if they re-make the sequels they get someone with a little more finesse to play the older Damien. That kid seemed to have bratty confused with evil. Also, the look he gave me at the end almost seemed like a big "fuck you" to the audience as opposed to something creepy. In all honesty, he seemed more like South Park's Damien than the original. It's like he was smirking at us for wasting two hours of our life (or close to that) with this movie in that last shot. Didn't pay money, used a free ticket from the Regal Crown Club.
All in all, I say stop the re-makes now, before it's too late!
Matthew Chmiel
06-08-06, 10:01 PM
This movie sucked. I am not even going to waste my time telling you all why I thought it sucked. It was pretty much a shot-by-shot remake with a less than stellar cast and an even less talented crew. I am seriously beginning to think that maybe the Dawn of the Dead and Hills Have Eyes remakes were just flukes.
What pissed me off the most is that the 9/11 (and other disasters) reference was just downright fucking tasteless. I can take it in a film like Final Destination 3 where the entire point of the flick is to be as mean spirited and tasteless as one can be, but not in a flick that tries to take itself seriously.
onebyone
06-08-06, 10:11 PM
thought it was a good, solid, well made remake. Creepy and well acted with substance and story over special effects. did you guys like that "mr. Preisdent" was holding hands with you know who at the end?
Except for Julia Stiles who wasn't very convincing as a mother, I agree with you. It wasn't great, but I enjoyed it and appreciated that they took the subject matter so seriously. I think this is one of the better remakes.
Still, as good as it was, nothing was as good as the trailer for Borat before the movie. I can't wait for that one.
Dr. DVD
06-09-06, 01:58 PM
What pissed me off the most is that the 9/11 (and other disasters) reference was just downright fucking tasteless. I can take it in a film like Final Destination 3 where the entire point of the flick is to be as mean spirited and tasteless as one can be, but not in a flick that tries to take itself seriously.
Why was it tasteless? It was just something they used briefly to illustrate a point. Granted, I thought the movie stunk but it seems like you have a double standard.
Matthew Chmiel
06-09-06, 08:28 PM
Why was it tasteless? It was just something they used briefly to illustrate a point. Granted, I thought the movie stunk but it seems like you have a double standard.
Double standard, yes. But both films portrayed the events of said day in a pretty shitty light. However, neither films used it to really portray a point.
It was out of place and tacky the way they presented 9/11 in Final Destination 3. However, I wasn't going to complain as I wasn't expecting anything less out of that film other than trash (and the filmmakers luckilly know that as well). I'm not okay in using the events of a recent tragedy in such a manner, but I'm not going to start a shitfest.
The Omen presents itself as serious filmmaking -- which it isn't. To use 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina references in that manner is just tacky and downright insulting. That right there is worse than how Final Destination 3 portrayed the event.
Julie Walker
06-09-06, 11:44 PM
I don't think it was 'offensive' that they briefly showcased those events. Since the film is supposed to take place in the present in 'reality' where those events really happened. Thus since the films all about the end of the world armageddon. It perfectly fits in with the theme that the world is falling apart and evil is attacking at every chance and continues to escalate until it wins.
And some conspiracy theorists/religous 'believer's do look at huge tragedies as 'evidence' the 'devil exists' and the 'world is ending,look at the signs!'. So since the film deals with religous terror,I see no point in not using those events in some context.
Patman
06-10-06, 10:02 PM
Would I have liked this film if they beefed up the characters of the parents more? Probably. As-is, tonally the film is good, not great, and the energy level is a little off. The updates of the interpretation/meaning of the signs from the disasters of the past 30 years lend a little more "scare" cred into the biblical mythology, but in another 30 years, will there just just a many horrific disasters that could be interpreted yet again as the signs for the coming of the beast?
I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
eXcentris
06-10-06, 10:58 PM
Another useless duplicate of a much better film.
I give it 0.666 star.
wm lopez
06-11-06, 12:06 AM
The music score and sound effects were very good.
It was a so-so movie and I would not buy the dvd.
I would rather watch the old one again.
Geofferson
06-11-06, 12:35 AM
I saw a matinee showing of this today and was not impressed at all. Pointless remake to coincide with a 6/6/6 release date.
Pillowhead
06-11-06, 12:54 AM
Did anybody else laugh at the puppets looking at the first nanny during Damien's birthday?
I was laughing for like 5 minutes after that. Freakin' hysterical.
I hate Marco Beltami! First he ruins the Terminator music in T3, now this. I loved the originals haunting chants.
I thought the movie was great. I was creeped out and anybody who hasn't seen the original would be really freaked. Of course it wasn't as good as the original, but the original has the luxury of being original. I do wish the ending were different.
The deceptive priest that convinces ambassador to take the child as his own looks freaky towards the end. The impaling, the decapitation were awesome. Only problem is we were expecting them.
Add this to the list of remakes/re-envisionings I've enjoyed: War of the Worlds, The Hills have Eyes, Dawn of the Dead (best remake ever), Night of the Living Dead (savini's version had a cooool ending),
Giantrobo
06-14-06, 04:52 AM
I just got back and I dug the film. :up: I think I saw the original years ago but I really liked this re-make.
Giantrobo
06-14-06, 04:53 AM
Did anybody else laugh at the puppets looking at the first nanny during Damien's birthday?
I was laughing for like 5 minutes after that. Freakin' hysterical.
Agreed. :lol:
Giantrobo
06-14-06, 04:55 AM
I don't think it was 'offensive' that they briefly showcased those events. Since the film is supposed to take place in the present in 'reality' where those events really happened. Thus since the films all about the end of the world armageddon. It perfectly fits in with the theme that the world is falling apart and evil is attacking at every chance and continues to escalate until it wins.
And some conspiracy theorists/religous 'believer's do look at huge tragedies as 'evidence' the 'devil exists' and the 'world is ending,look at the signs!'. So since the film deals with religous terror,I see no point in not using those events in some context.
Well said. It made perfect sense in the context of the prophecies and the updating of the film. I wasn't offended by seeing the towers but the 1st thought that came to mind was, "Uh oh. This is gonna offend someone".
LiquidSky
06-21-06, 09:09 AM
I saw it this past weekend and would give it a "C".
The performances by Mia Farrow, David Thewlis, Pete Postlethwait were strong while the leads Liev Schriber (who I usually like) and Julia Stiles were bland.
Buttmunker
06-22-06, 10:03 AM
I didn't - and don't want to - see this movie, but judging from the TV Spots that aired, they show Damien with a more conscious sense of his Evil, while in the original, he was much more innocent in his unconscious doings - controlled with sheer will by Mrs. Baylock (like when Katherine fell from the rafters).
Damien didn't become aware of who he was until the sequel - Damien: Omen II.
Giantrobo
06-23-06, 04:52 AM
I didn't - and don't want to - see this movie, but judging from the TV Spots that aired, they show Damien with a more conscious sense of his Evil, while in the original, he was much more innocent in his unconscious doings - controlled with sheer will by Mrs. Baylock (like when Katherine fell from the rafters).
Damien didn't become aware of who he was until the sequel - Damien: Omen II.
I got the vibe that he's "aware of something" but he probably doesn't understand it at this point. I think he's "aware" of those out to harm him and those who "get it" or are on to him. Other than that he's just a weird kid.
Seantn
06-23-06, 11:24 AM
In the commercials i've seen he's making all sorts of weird 'evil' (and sour) faces while he's making a sandwich, hiding behind a tree, etc.... I liked how the boy in the first one actually smiled at Mrs. Baylock when she first met him. He seemed semi-innocent, but at the same time not.
Charlie Goose
06-28-06, 12:47 AM
Damien scared his mother by.....gasp!....making a PB&J!!
This was about what I expected. A few BOO scares, like when the dogs attack in the graveyard.
Liev Schreiber and Julia Stiles are two terrible actors.
ReduxGuy
06-30-06, 02:24 AM
The impaling, the decapitation were awesome. Only problem is we were expecting them.
I wasn't expecting Jennings' decapitation to play out like that. It was morbidly brilliant.
Giantrobo
06-30-06, 05:00 AM
I wasn't expecting Jennings' decapitation to play out like that. It was morbidly brilliant.
I agree. I knew it was coming and the whole "I know how I'm gonna die" thing even helped to build some anticipation for it. However, when it happened it still blew me away in one of those "Ooooh shit!! moments.
It was a very well done scene.
Original Desmond
09-10-06, 05:44 AM
Quite an enjoyable film, the deaths were cool.
I totally agree that the kid was too one dimension. If he could switch from angelic to evil, he would have been more convincing.
Julia Stiles is too young for this role. I was so suprised to see her in it.
David Thewis, the reporter is an awesome actor. great in every role he does.
Buy: